Let’s look at the opposite … an unchanging climate … how the hell is that supposed to happen?
But you’re not a scientist so how could you possibly understand any scientific papers. You’ve referred to four articles that are profound NOT peer-review and these articles make claims that are not substantiated by the papers they refer to.
But you’re not a scientist so you don’t know just how ridiculous the claims they make are. If you accept what they say … unquestioningly … then you practice religious dogma. God made mud.
Fine. Then again my question:
Does anyone in this thread deny climate change as you have defined it? A simple yes or no will do.
And please answer my questions from before:
-
Who in this thread denies that mankind’s activities are likely to have some kind of effect on the climate? Please give me the names, because strongly suspect you are lying.
-
What exactly about how the planet works do you think is being denied? Or to put it another way, what exactly about how the planet works is being ignored, overlooked or denied?
-
Do you agree that clear thinking requires reasonably precise definitions?
:shrug: You are the one who seems to be lying and playing hide the ball with your position.
You are welcome. Do you believe the amount of precision I am requesting is unreasonable?
Ooh, are we about to see another addition to Brazil’s list of “posters smarter than Brazil”?
I’m not sure, but evidently some warmists get a lot of satisfaction from pretending that the dispute is over changing climate versus unchanging climate.
Oh, and in other news, a crater in Russia may very well be evidence of a massive amount of methane released into the atmosphere that’ll make everything worse.
Salud, heavy industry.
I don’t expect them ever to be healed. What will happen is that the scare will fizzle out and go down the memory hole. If confronted, they will either ignore it or claim that whatever happened was consistent with their claims. (Which will be very easy to do given the vagueness and ever-changing nature of their claims) Meanwhile, they will move on to the Next Big Scare without having learned anything at all from their folly.
It’s funny, innit? I actually agree with every word of this.
Just not in the way you meant it.
I can only understand the papers based on science courses I took in uni. For the articles, I believe one is released by a professional organization and two go through an editorial process.
Please prove the ff. claims that you just made:
-
The science papers are not peer-reviewed. Please refer to documented and fact-checked evidence to prove your point.
-
The articles make claims that are not supported by the papers. Please refer to specific points in each article and then refer to specific passages from the papers that do not support each point.
-
The claims made in the papers are “ridiculous.” Please present your own peer-reviewed counter of each main point of each paper, and make sure that your arguments are backed up by documented evidence.
Probably that’s because you are self-deceived.
By the way, do you agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics’ assertion that “there remains uncertainty about how rapidly and extensively the climate will change in the future”?
Also, are you asserting that my claims are vague and/or ever-changing? If so, please provide 2 specific examples.
It’s more likely the “doom” will keep getting moved farther and farther out, into the future. Like the 3 meter rise in sea level. Or the loss of glaciers in India and China, or the vanishing snow and cold in winters, or the loss of all sea ice.
There’s no real consequence for making a prediction (now called projections) and it not happening. It’s why it seems like dealing with psychics, who make predictions, or the second coming of christ. Even when it doesn’t happen, it doesn’t seem to matter to the faithful. They insist it still will happen.
At this point, the predictions about global warming have been moved so far out, the prophets will be dead before anyone will know if they are right.
I’ve played this game before … you make a claim that you do not substantiate … I point out that’s it’s not substantiated … now you demand peer-reviewed scientific papers demonstrating you haven’t substantiated your claims.
Show me a climate forecast from 1964 that proves to be accurate today … just one … any one … and make sure it shows the math … because just guessing isn’t generally considered accurate.
Science denialism 101: the quote mine.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/120/5/1149.full
Hmm, notice how your quote would imply that they seem uncertain on the issue, when in fact they are very clearly acting in line with the scientific consensus? Which, of course, leads directly to the next topic in Science Denialism 101, “Inflating Uncertainty”. Yes, science is often uncertain. We’re not 100% sure about things. There are error margins, and things are often based on situations not changing vastly. But to conflate that into “we cannot make any definitive statements” is asinine. It’s, as stated, science denialism 101.
Are you accusing me of being a jerk? Because I believe I can be one in the Pit. It’s not GD. I don’t have to show, tell, or cite anything. Y’know why? Because I’m with thousands of climate scientists and dozens of sciencey Dopers, all saying that you and your pitiful cohort are dangerously wrong. They are too nice for their position’s good, and have patiently and politely provided reams of data, over and over again, that you guys toss aside without reading because science is hard. And you and your friends trot out the same bullshit cites, things by proven crackpots, industry shills, unfinished speeches, and even good cites that say the opposite of what you think they say. I’m sick of it, and if you didn’t know it before, I’m not a nice, patient, and accommodating person.
So shut up and read the fucking cites you’ve been given. And if you come out of it feeling the same way you do now, accept that you are a muddle-headed moron who is too stupid to function in intelligent society, and go away to ponder your sins.
I’d quit being nice about it but I know for a fact there’s a person or two just begging for an excuse to get me banned. So I’ll just fight obvious misinformation wherever I can, and leave the dickishness to the pit.
You pieces of human apathy.
You’re quite right that it’s not hard to quickly type out some shit even if you’re not expert in the technical aspects of the science. But that doesn’t mean that the shit you type out gives an accurate portrayal of the science.
The problem is that you’re just cherrypicking certain specific events that superficially appear to contradict particular climate-change predictions. If you look at the broader patterns of weather/seasonal events overall, on the other hand, they fit in quite well with the predictions. As the most recent US Climate Assessment remarks,
Waving around a newspaper report of a record low summer temperature in Kansas City, for example, doesn’t in any way nullify or contradict conclusions drawn from looking at the climate data as a whole.
If you think any of it’s WRONG, then please type out what you think is correct, or what you think is wrong.
The topic is long and deep and complex. Your shallow description of my contributions is wrong.
Of course it doesn’t. Just as a heat wave does not prove global warming (AGW).
What is interesting, is something like the current measurements of climate data, which shows Wisconsin Having Their Coldest Year On Record
I’m skeptical, so I check that shit out. I look at trends, and find not only is it Wisconsin showing a cooling trend, so does Minnesota and Michigan and shit like that. Like Illinois, which had the coldest 4 month winter period ever. Dec-Mar 2014, the coldest four months on record.
Now that sort of climate change gets my attention. Especially when the climate models predicted the opposite. Then I look at the entire NH winters, the oceans compared to land changes, there are all kinds of things that don’t meet the theory of CO2 caused climate change. And that shit is interesting.
The problem you run into, is that because the facts don’t meet the current theory, the staunch defenders of the AGW cause think you are destroying everything they believe in (or trying to at least).
But that isn’t how science works. When observations or experiments show a theory is wrong, you change the theory. That’s how science works. The problem is that the believers went too far, and started acting as if it wasn’t a scientific theory, but a fact, and there’s where the shit hits the fan.
Nope, it’s pretty much spot-on, as the rest of your post illustrates.
See, in one breath you concede that isolated cherry-picked events don’t contradict or invalidate conclusions about climate change based on climate data as a whole. And in the next breath you trot out a few more isolated cherry-picked events, and attempt to insinuate that they do contradict or invalidate conclusions about climate change based on climate data as a whole.
Presenting some isolated cherry-picked facts in a way that superficially suggests they “don’t meet the current theory” is a far cry from actually showing that “the facts” as a whole genuinely “don’t meet the current theory”.
You are persistently attempting to do the former while pretending you’re accomplishing the latter. But by this point, I don’t think you’re fooling anyone.
The claim that I made was substantiated by four papers. You argue that the points raised by the papers are not correct. You can either refer to peer-reviewed science papers that back up your argument or make your own study.
The topic is about models from 1990 onward, not from 1964.